September 18, 2021

Volume XI, Number 261

Advertisement

September 17, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 16, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

New California Law Requires Diversity on Corporate Boards of Directors

On September 30, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 979, a measure that will require publicly held corporations in California to achieve diversity on their boards of directors by January 2023.

Similar to its 2018 predecessor (SB 826), which focused on increasing female representation on boards of directors, SB 979 requires each covered corporation to have at least one director from an underrepresented community on its board by the end of 2021. By the close of 2022, a covered corporation with between five and eight directors must have at least two directors from underrepresented communities, and a covered corporation with nine or more directors must have at least three directors from underrepresented communities. Under the new law, the California secretary of state may impose a $100,000 fine“[f]or failure to timely file board member information” for the first violation and $300,000 for each subsequent violation.

The new law defines a covered corporation as “a publicly held domestic or foreign corporation whose principal executive offices … are located in California,” regardless of where the corporation is incorporated. A publicly held corporation is defined as “a corporation with outstanding shares listed on a major United States stock exchange.” A director from an underrepresented community means “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.” SB 979 is codified by adding Section 301.4 to the state’s Corporations Code.

Two years ago, then-governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 826 (now codified at Corporations Code Section 301.3) requiring publicly held corporations with principal executive offices in California to have at least one female director on the board by December 31, 2019. Depending on the size of the board at that time, covered corporations may need to add additional female directors by the end of 2021. Similar to SB 979, the 2018 measure authorized the secretary of state to impose substantial fines for initial and   subsequent violations.

Both SB 979 and SB 826 require the secretary of state to publish reports on its website documenting, among other things, the number of corporations in compliance. The measures further require that any fines collected “be available … for use by the [s]ecretary of [s]tate to offset the cost of administering” the requirements.

Both SB 979 and SB 826 also make findings and declarations reflecting the underrepresentation of women, African Americans, Latinos, and Asians on the boards of publicly traded companies in California. SB 979 also cites several sources concerning the lack of diversity on corporate boards, including a statement that of the 662 publicly traded companies headquartered in California, 35 percent had “all White boards of directors” as of July 1, 2020. SB 826 cites reports finding that companies with women on their boards of directors have higher net income growth and better stock performance, and carry less risk and debt, than companies without women on their boards.

Legal challenges to Sections 301.3 and 301.4 on constitutional grounds are anticipated despite the inclusion of these declarations. Legal challenges are also anticipated as California’s legislators attempt to change corporate governance requirements of corporations incorporated outside of California.

© 2021, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume X, Number 289
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Shareholder

For 20 years, Jay has advised companies on a variety of workplace issues including preparing and enforcing non-competition agreements, dealing with complex employee leave issues, defending employment discrimination lawsuits, and providing advice on difficult workplace issues.  Jay has written extensively on Alabama’s newly amended restrictive covenant law and has enforced and defended restrictive covenant cases in state and federal courts.  Jay provides ongoing support to clients who are managing long-term, complicated leave and accommodation issues by helping them to...

205-986-1021
Tracie L. Childs San Diego Employment Law, Litigation, Class Action, Higher Education, Pay Equity, Wage and Hour, Ethics Compliance, Investigations and Whistleblower Response
Shareholder

Tracie Childs focuses her practice on defending national employers against class, representative and collective actions.  She also has extensive experience representing Fortune 500 companies, for profit and non-profit organizations, public, and quasi-public entities, in defense of various complex labor and employment issues. She handles litigated matters from inception to verdict, and has jury trial experience in the following areas: wrongful termination, harassment, discrimination, breach of employment contract, whistleblower, qui tam/False Claims Act, corporate D&O disputes...

858-652-3053
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement